d, however, when a persistence in this reticence
would have involved me in an unworthy paltering with truth.

At the meeting of the British Association at Oxford, in 1860, Professor
Owen repeated these assertions in my presence, and, of course, I
immediately gave them a direct and unqualified contradiction, pledging
myself to justify that unusual procedure elsewhere. I redeemed that
pledge by publishing, in the January number of the 'Natural History
Review' for 1861, an article wherein the truth of the three following
propositions was fully demonstrated (l. c. p. 71):--

"1. That the third lobe is neither peculiar to, nor characteristic of,
man, seeing that it exists in all the higher quadrumana."

"2. That the posterior cornu of the lateral ventricle is neither
peculiar to, nor characteristic of, man, inasmuch as it also exists in
the higher quadrumana."

"3. That the 'hippocampus minor' is neither pecular to, nor
characteristic of, man, as it is found in certain of the higher
quadrumana."

Furthermore, this paper contains the following paragraph (p. 76): "And
lastly, Schroeder van der Kolk and Vrolik (op. cit. p. 271), though they
particularly note that 'the lateral ventricle is distinguished from that
of Man by the very defective proportions of the posterior cornu, wherein
only a stripe is visible as an indication of the hippocampus minor;' yet
the Figure 4, in their second Plate, shows that this posterior cornu is
a perfectly distinct and unmistakeable structure, quite as large as it
often is in Man. It is the more remarkable that Professor Owen should
have overlooked the explicit statement and figure of these authors, as
it is quite obvious, on comparison of the figures, that his woodcut of
the brain of a Chimpanzee (l. c. p. 19) is a reduced copy of the second
figure of Messrs. Schroeder van der Kolk and Vrolik's first Plate.

"As M. Gratiolet (l. c. p. 18), however is careful to remark,
'unfortunately the brain which they have taken as a model was greatly
altered (profondement affaisse), whence the general form of the brain
is given in these plates in a manner which is altogether incorrect.'
Indeed, it is perfectly obvious, from a comparison of a section of the
skull of the Chimpanzee with these figures, that such is the case; and
it is greatly to be regretted that so inadequate a figure should have
been taken as a typical representation of the Chimpanzee's brain."

From this time forth, the untenability o